Jim Jordan Rips Hillary For ‘Telling Spin To The American People’ About Benghazi

Jim Jordan member of the House Select Committee on Benghazi, says Hillary Clinton was “telling truth in private” while “telling spin to the American people” after the Benghazi terrorist attacks.

In an interview on “Fox News Sunday” with host Chris Wallace, Jordan criticized Clinton for determining “which e-mails are public and which emails are work related.”

Wallace: In the end, Congressman, most of the mainstream media, I think the consensus was, that you and the other Republicans on the Benghazi Committee didn’t come up with much new. How do you respond to that? 

Jordan: Well, I think it is new to tell the American people she said something completely different in private. She was telling truth in private, she was telling spin to the American people. I mean who talks in language like that? ‘Someone sought to justify this vicious behavior as a response to inflammatory material posted on the internet.’ Contrast that with what she said to the Egyptian Prime Minister. ‘We know the attack had nothing to do with the film. It was a planned attack not a protest.’ That’s plain language, that’s being straightforward, that’s being forthcoming. Why didn’t she talk in those kind of terms with the American people? And here’s why it’s relevant, Chris. At the end of the hearing, we ask her, relative to her e-mail situation. You know her and her legal team determine which e-mails are public and which emails are work related. And we said ‘if the FBI finds… deleted e-mails, will they agree, will Clinton and her team agree to allow a neutral third party like a retired federal judge to examine those deleted e-mails and to determine if some of those are applicable to our investigation?’ Her response was, ‘no,’ they wouldn’t agree to that. So we have her doing all this spin the night of the attack and now when it comes to her e-mails, she gets to determine which ones are work related and which ones aren’t. And she won’t let some neutral third party to do it and calls into question her evaluation of those e-mails and she wouldn’t agree to allow a neutral third party to do it. And that’s why it’s relevant.

Source